Miliband(s) and the left. Can Labour learn its history?

The party must avoid repeating the mistakes of the 1930s, the 1950s and the 1980s.

Can the left, or more specifically Labour, learn from its history? In an important article in the Times (£), David Miliband sets out his stall as a leading thinker on the crisis of the contemporary left in Europe. More precisely, he discusses the failure of the European parties of the governing left to seize the moment.

He claims that the parties of the European left have never been so excluded from government. That is a little unfair on Spain, Portugal, Greece and now Ireland. And David's father lived through the 1950s, when Britain, Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries and Ireland were all solidly under centre-right rule, as was France, where the main-left opposition was provided by the Communist Party, which did protest not power.

Might it be more true that voters do not vote left at times of economic crisis and downturn? Instead, these periods see a rise of populist, nationalist identity politics, often allied to economic and social protectionism and isolationism. The left came into power in Germany in 1970 and France in 1981 at the end of longish periods of growth. Labour did badly in the 1980s and lost a fourth consecutive election in 1992 at a time of high unemployment, house repossessions and mass business closures.

By 1997, the economy was stabilised, growth was steady, and unemployment was going down. Rather than the worse, the better for the left, it may be more accurate to say that countries vote left when voters feel more confident about their future.

If greens and anti-social-democratic parties of the left are counted in with mainstream Party of European Socialist parties, then the accumulated left vote does not look so bleak even today. There is a fair chance that Dominique Strauss-Kahn could win the French presidency next year, such is the disillusion with Nicolas Sarkozy, who now trails behind the extremist and racist Marine Le Pen, who has succeeded her father as leader of France's National Front. There are six major regional elections in Germany this year following the Hamburg mini Land vote, which the Social Democrats comfortably won over Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats. Judgements can be made later in the year, but the chances of the SPD returning to run Germany in coalition cannot be dismissed.

The biggest problem for classic social democracy or Labourism is the disappearance of a nationally rooted, industrial working class, both skilled and blue-collar manual. There is a proletariat, but it is often immigrant, sometimes without papers, disconnected from a common sense of national identity or the traditional religious and communal history of the left. If Labour owed more to Methodism than Marx, what now is Labour's connection to Muslim Britain?

Trade unions in Europe no longer confront or control capitalism, as the private-sector economy is largely union-free. Instead unions are concentrated in the public sector, where the source of pay, pensions and perks comes from workers paying taxes. Has the left got a politics for the public sector beyond denouncing cuts? French unions have been mobilising public-sector workers continuously in a series of strikes and protests for 20 years. The unions may fill the streets, but voting urns are filled for the right as French voters keep choosing a right-wing president and even in 2002 preferred Jean-Marie Le Pen to the Socialist Lionel Jospin.

The European country where the left has held cabinet seats continuously since 1958 is Switzerland. But Switzerland is also home to Europe biggest populist identity party, the SVP (Swiss People's Party), which campaigns against the EU, against mosques, against Muslims and for harsh criminal justice. So does the left win and hold government power simultaneously with losing its hold over its traditional 20th-century base – the national, monocultural working class?

David Miliband has sketched out a series of brilliant insights, and his talk tonight at the LSE is an important event as Labour starts the long process of thinking about where it went wrong and what it needs to do to regain power. In South Yorkshire on 19 March, Britain's top Labour historians will gather with the public to discuss part of the question Miliband addresses. At a conference in Rotherham called "31-51-81: Why Labour Stayed in Opposition", Professor Andrew Gamble and other historians and writers on Labour will try to explain Labour's three lost decades – the 1930s, the 1950s and the 1980s. (Details and application form here.)

Gerald Kaufman, who was in the Oxford Labour Club with Rupert Murdoch and stood for parliament in 1955 and 1959, will join with David Owen, founder 30 years ago of the Social Democratic Party as witnesses to those bleak lost decades for Labour. What did Labour do or say that made voters maintain the right in power? Are there lessons today from how Labour stayed rooted in opposition for such long spells in the 20th century?

En route between London and his South Shields constituency, David Miliband is welcome to drop off in Rotherham on Saturday week. So are any NS readers who would like to take part. Come to think of it, Doncaster is only 20 minutes from Rotherham. Maybe David's brother should disguise himself, sit at the back, and see if the story of Labour in the 1930s, 1950s or 1980s can provide clues as to how he can set about becoming prime minister sooner rather than later.

Denis MacShane is the MP for Rotherham and a former Europe minister.

For more information go to 31-51-81.co.uk or send cheque for £10 to: South Yorkshire Political Conference, 4 Hall Grove, Rotherham S60 2BS.

Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and was a minister at Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Show Hide image

Owen Smith interview: “I’m pretty red”

The Labour leadership challenger is struggling to win over a left suspicious of his past. 

The south Wales valleys embody the history of the labour movement: its victories, its defeats, its heroes, its villains. It was this resonant location that Owen Smith chose for his speech on the morning of 22 August. Labour Party members had that day begun voting on whether the 46-year-old Pontypridd MP should replace Jeremy Corbyn as their leader.

“Our history, our party was literally hewed from the hillsides around where we sit today,” Smith told a small audience at the Ely Valley Miners Welfare Club in Tonyrefail, a short distance from his home. The Welshman cited the Taff Vale judgment of 1901, which ruled that trade unions could be sued for losses caused by industrial action. It was this decision that spurred on the establishment of a Labour Party in parliament to repeal the law (as it would do in 1906 in alliance with the Liberal government).

Smith spoke later of marching with miners from the Maerdy Colliery as a 14-year-old, on the day they returned to work at the end of the 1984-85 strike. “I saw that they were utterly unbowed,” he recalled. “But they were ultimately defeated.”

Such moments, he concluded, proved the need for Labour to win power and to maintain “a powerful voice in parliament” – something he believes Jeremy Corbyn is incapable of providing. On 28 June, less than a year after Corbyn’s landslide victory, 172 MPs (81 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party) endorsed a no-confidence motion in him. Sixty-five shadow ministers, including Smith (who was then the shadow work and pensions secretary), resigned from the front bench.

Yet though Smith enjoys the overwhelming backing of the PLP, few believe he will prevail among members. He achieved only 53 constituency nominations, against the leader’s 285. On social media, where internal party contests are increasingly decided, Smith’s reach is minuscule compared to that of Corbyn (who has 795,000 Facebook fans to his 14,000).

The day before Smith spoke in south Wales, he won the endorsement of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London and Labour’s most senior elected politician. He was subsequently also backed by the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale. Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband have trumpeted his cause. Yet Smith-supporting MPs fear that such declarations count for little. “It’s like the Remain campaign and the Archbishop of Canterbury,” one told me, suggesting that Labour members, like Leave voters, ”weren’t listening” to such grandees.

Corbyn’s allies and foes alike are already preparing for the aftermath of the leader’s anticipated victory. The former warn that rebel MPs put themselves at risk of deselection by members. In response, some have threatened privately to form a parliamentary breakaway group and bid for the status of the official opposition.

Smith, unsurprisingly, insists that he can win. “I think the CLP [Constituency Labour Party] nominations don’t truly reflect the views in CLPs,” he told me when we spoke after his 20-minute address. The challenger, dressed in his favoured combination of dark suit and open-necked white shirt, welcomed the black coffee proffered by his aide. “They reflect the fact that some of the people who are new members and are supportive of Jeremy were very organised . . .

“Anybody who knows the Labour Party knows that selections are very often won by the sleepers: the people who don’t go to CLP meetings and don’t necessarily shout from the rooftops.” Smith’s hopes rest on those who share Oscar Wilde’s view: “The problem with socialism is that it takes up too many spare evenings.”

Cartoon: George Leigh

Smith first publicly revealed his leadership ambitions in an interview with me back in January. “It would be an incredible honour and privilege,” he said. I wrote then of a widespread view among Labour MPs that the next leader “will at least need to be from the party’s soft left to be acceptable to the party membership”. When the rebellion against Corbyn came, it was this consideration that proved decisive. Smith was embraced as a Miliband-esque socialist and a parliamentary “clean skin”, untainted by the New Labour years, having been elected in 2010. By contrast, his initial rival, Angela Eagle, had been an MP since 1992 and voted for the Iraq War.

However, Smith proved to have a more ambiguous past than some of his backers anticipated. Corbyn’s supporters swiftly unearthed a series of interviews from 2006 in which their opponent made a notably centrist pitch. Smith, then a by-election candidate in Blaenau Gwent, south Wales, defended Tony Blair (suggesting that they differed only over the Iraq War), supported private-sector involvement in the National Health Service and praised city academies. “I’m not someone, frankly, who gets terribly wound up about some of the ideological nuances,” he told Wales Online.

Since then, he has struggled to reconcile these positions with his increasingly left-wing programme: opposing private provision in the NHS, returning academy schools to local authority control, banning zero-hours contracts and imposing a wealth tax of 1 per cent.

“To be honest, my opponents have extrapolated rather a lot in an attempt to brand me as a ‘Blairite wolf in sheep’s clothing’,” Smith told me. “Well, I’m nothing of the sort, I’ve always been a democratic socialist and I always will be. My views haven’t really changed at all, I’m someone who has been on the left of the party.

“My dad [the Welsh historian Dai Smith] is someone who’s been on the left of the Labour movement all his life. I’m someone who’s been surrounded by people who’ve been on the left of the Labour movement all their lives. It should come as no surprise that I’ve come out of that background and I’m pretty red. Because I am.”

Yet a former shadow cabinet colleague told me that Smith did not stand out as “a radical” in meetings: “The only time that I remember him becoming really animated was over further tax-raising powers for Scotland and the implications for Wales.”

What Smith believes in most, some say, is himself. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, described him as “one of the most ambitious career politicians I’ve met”. Others have dismissed him as a “Big Pharma lobbyist” because of his past as head of policy and government relations for Pfizer.

“I’m not ashamed that I had a life outside politics before I became an MP,” Smith told me. “Yes, I worked for Pfizer and I also worked as a BBC journalist and as an adviser to the last Labour government on the peace process in Northern Ireland.

“People don’t want career politicians – they want men and women who have had experience of working in business and in the different sectors that make up our economy. Critics may use it against me, but my time in business has helped me understand what’s wrong with it and how we can make it work better.”

Corbyn’s supporters, however, allege that Smith’s left-wing pledges would not withstand contact with centrist colleagues. The degree to which the challenger has rebutted this charge shows that he recognises its potency.

He has offered to make Corbyn party president or chair if he wins, to allow Corbyn to act as “a guardian of Labour’s values”. In his speech, Smith vowed to increase member influence by making conference votes binding on the leadership.

Throughout the 1980s, another soft-left Welshman, Neil Kinnock, struggled to assert authority as the hard left retained control of vital bodies. Smith’s proposals risk replicating this conflict. But he told me that he would respect Labour’s conference even if it endorsed stances such as Trident abolition (Smith joined CND as a teenager but later renounced unilateralism). “I do think in order to reassure members that, under my leadership, we would listen hard to them and act in accordance with their views, conference does need to become sovereign once more,” he said.

Tony Benn’s dream of internal democracy appeared to be within reach. I asked Smith whether he would support other reforms such as a reduced MP nomination threshold for leadership candidates (Corbyn allies have proposed a cut from 15 per cent to 5 per cent). “All of these things can be debated,” he told me. “I’m not sure it should be 5 per cent: I need to look at it when we get closer to it. But I am convinced that the left needs to be able to put up candidates in this contest, I’ve always felt that.”

Smith’s assertion is contradicted by a colleague who described him as having been “furious”, “apoplectic” when Corbyn made the ballot last year (he supported Andy Burnham’s campaign).

                                                                                                                                                         ***

Smith is less equiovcal over the mandatory reselection of MPs. “That would be a really retrograde step for the party,” he told me. “It would be an uncomradely way for us to do business.” He is critical of the Corbyn-aligned group Momentum, some of whose members are spearheading deselection efforts. “I fear an attitude within Momentum that they are a separate organisation and they shouldn’t be,” he told me. “It’s hard to argue that they’re loyal and supportive if they’re organising a bloomin’ great really in the same town at the same time in competition to the Labour Party” (the group will hold its own four-day conference alongside Labour’s in Liverpool).

Some of those close to Corbyn, such as John McDonnell, have unhesitatingly described themselves as Marxists (in 2006, the shadow chancellor named Marx, Lenin and Trotsky as his “most significant” intellectual influences). I asked Smith whether he believed Labour could encompass such views. “Yes, I think we’ve always been a broad church and there have always been people who’ve come from that tradition,” he replied. “There are two broad traditions: the extra-parliamentary tradition, that has always seen parliament as a compromise and parliamentary socialism as a compromise, from [the trade unionist and theorist] Noah Ablett here in south Wales with The Miners’ Next Step through to Ed Miliband’s dad [Ralph, a Marxist historian] ... and the mainstream social democratic tradition that I came from.”

He added: “We’ve had this battle in the Labour Party over the ages, haven’t we? Except now I think it’s more serious because there is a very real danger, with Labour at such a low ebb and politics fragmented more broadly, and so many more parties and so many options for people and such a lesser tribal attachment to the Labour Party, that we can’t afford those fractures.

"If we splinter, there’s lot of other places for people to put their vote.”

                                                                                                                                                        ***

Though they will not say so publicly, some of Smith’s supporters believe Labour would remain unelectable under his leadership. A former shadow cabinet minister told me that he was offering a “warmed-up Ed Milibandism, which was rejected by the voters”. Smith naturally contests this analysis. “I don’t think that we lost the last election because we were too left-wing,” he said. “The proof is that the Tories have engaged in all sorts of these policies ... Theresa May’s opening speech upon becoming leader was to talk about social injustice, economic insecurity, lack of security in the workplace. Labour values, Labour words in a Tory mouth, evidence that the broad story we’re telling about Britain is right.”

Smith said that, unlike Corbyn, he would resign if he became leader and lost a confidence vote by MPs. “Yes - I would [resign]. We are a party that believes in parliamentary democracy and, as such, it is only right that the leader commands the support of his or her colleagues in the Commons.”

Should Corbyn win the contest, as expected, Smith will not return to the shadow cabinet but act as “a loyal backbencher”.  He pledges to resist any breakaway: “I'm Labour, I've always been Labour and I will never stop being Labour," he said. 

Speaking of his fear that Corbyn would seek to remain leader even if the party lost the next general election, he said: “I’m deeply worried about it. I think he’s determined to hang on come hell or high water. And what does that say about him? ... I think he is more concerned with his version of the Labour Party being sustained and being victorious than he is with the Labour Party being victorious in elections. I think he is actually prepared to sacrifice unity and victory - two great words that have traditionally been emblazoned on Labour banners through the ages - in order to secure control of the party.”

The trouble for Owen Smith is that, for all his combative talk and appeal to the left, he is trapped between his past pragmatism and his present radicalism. 

Tony Benn, Corbyn’s late mentor, divided politicians into “signposts” and “weathercocks”: those who shape opinion and those who are shaped by it. He would have branded Smith a “weathercock”. Even if he wins, Smith risks being remembered not as a politician who resolved his party’s contradictions, but as one who embodied them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 25 August 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Cameron: the legacy of a loser